Everyone knows technology has gotten better since 1960. But they don’t credit this fact to our institutions or social norms. They credit it to “some stuff nerds reliably do that make us X% richer every year as long as we aren’t communists”.
So what they really want is 2025 technology combined with 1960 society. Amazon.com + 1960 crime rates. Central AC + 1960 marriage rates. Lower child mortality + 1960 fertility rates.
They seem to correctly understand that a working class person could acquire a wife, kids, and shelter in a safe neighborhood near their work in 1960. The home might have been smaller and it might have had less appliances, but it would have been a home with a family in a stable community.
In other words, the kind of stuff Charles Murray talks about in Coming Apart.
Myself, it’s clear from running the math that someone with my father’s job could not afford to live in the house I grew up in. Perhaps you could say this is a sign of economic growth (real estate got more expensive), but Something feels off about that.
Crime would have been another good graph, I should have included that one. Murder rate in 1960 was 5.1 compared to 5.0 in 2019. There was a covid bump but now it's coming back down. The 60's had a 13% higher average murder rate than the 2010's did. Violent crime is a favorite topic for the negativity industrial complex.
Marriage and fertility rates are different issues and I hear you on those. I'd love marriage rates to be higher, but at the same time, marriage rates were inflated in the 60's because no fault divorce laws hadn't been enacted yet. More people were married, but presumably there were a lot more unhappy marriages. Now people have the ability to leave marriages more freely, so it's just a cultural issue to ensure that people are choosing long term partners for the right reasons. Fertility is even tougher and there's a huge debate as to what's causing this decline. Not enough space here to flesh that out but again it's probably a cultural issue, not an inherent issue with populist targets like capitalism or liberalism.
Murray's community decline arguments resonate with me too. I'm all for more community, but in my mind there's nothing inherent in capitalism or liberalism that precludes forming strong communities. The argument that our economic or political institutions need to be radically reformed to better promote community are based on faulty assumptions about the causes of community decline. Wealth creation can cause community decline in the same way that excess food production can cause diabetes. The solution isn't to burn down the farms. Wealth and food production are good things in moderation, and culturally we just need to remember how to better moderate. Populists blame community decline on top-down nefarious causes like globalism, the elites, immigration, corporations, etc., and all I'm arguing is that the top-down causes of community formation is backwards - communities are definitionally bottoms-up grassroots organizations, so if people want better communities, they should start or join better communities.
The murder rate is a bit dodgy to use because medical advances, especially those that came out of the Vietnam War, dramatically reduced the number of people who actually die from violent acts compared to incidences of violent acts themselves. So its not that violent crime went down, just that less people are outright dying from it.
There are other advances that have curtailed certain kinds of crime. For instance, it's just a lot harder and less lucrative to steal cars these days. But when measures fail for some reason theft increases dramatically.
On a personal note having lived in a high crime city for awhile, I know my own reported crime rate was 90% lower than my actual experienced crime rate. Once you call the police the first time and learn nothing is going to be done, you don't call again.
I would also note we've also taken on a number of lifestyle changes to avoid crime, such as white flight, sprawl and zoning that have their own costs in order to keep crime down. A lot of your NIMBYism is just "the only way available for us to keep the underclass out."
"no fault divorce laws hadn't been enacted yet. More people were married, but presumably there were a lot more unhappy marriages."
I'm skeptical. Most research seems to indicate that divorcing for non-fault reasons is bad for the kids and doesn't do anything for the adults.
I think the real driver is just that we heavily subsidize single mothers and tax working class married mens wages at like 100% when you factor in benefit eligibility. Who wouldn't marry uncle same under those circumstances.
UMC gets around this by marrying late with super high incomes, with the price being that they are too old to have kids.
I don't argue against "capitalism". My solutions would in many ways mirror Murray's (note, Murray calls for lower immigration rates as part of the package).
A nice oasis in the sea of online doomposting, which definitely plays a role in the widespread negativity. I think you did a great job covering the analytical perspective. There’s certainly no rational reason for the negativity. I wonder if what you’ve observed can be explained better psychologically, or dare I say spiritually? I’m not sure if there are already coined terms out there to describe things like this, maybe you can be the first.
Thank you sir! I've thought about the spiritual factors before but haven't written about it yet in an article. Curious what you mean by it - how do you think negativity is being caused by spiritual factors?
Basically my question would be: does secularization lead to higher depression rates or "negativity" about the future in our context? I know that's really hard to nail down, especially since negativity can't really be tracked, but I got some starter info from grok on twitter:
"At the individual level, research in the U.S. paints a pretty consistent picture: religiosity often correlates with lower depression. A big review of 444 studies from 1962 to 2010 found that 61% showed less depression among religious folks, with only 6% suggesting more. A 2010 Gallup analysis of over 550,000 Americans found "very religious" people—those attending services weekly and rating religion as important—had a 15.6% lifetime depression diagnosis rate, compared to 19.2% for the moderately religious and 17.8% for the nonreligious. The protective edge held even after controlling for demographics like age, gender, and region. Another study, from Columbia University in 2011, tracked 114 high-risk adults over 10 years and found those who valued religion or spirituality highly had less than one-tenth the risk of major depression recurrence. Fast forward to a 2018 study on midlife Americans: those identifying as "spiritual but not religious" had a 33% higher depression risk over decades compared to the religiously affiliated, suggesting organized religion might offer something—maybe community or structure—that solo spirituality doesn’t."
Is that enough to be significant? Probably not, but I think in general religion can affect outlook on life and therefore positivity. As for the how, I'm not really sure. Could be a lot of factors like community or something more existentialist.
Yeah great thoughts. I definitely think spirituality is a key factor. The evidence that religion has positive health, happiness, and mental health benefits is pretty robust at this point and interestingly it looks like it's not just the community involvement that is responsible for these benefits - other communities like civic clubs or bowling leagues or whatever also provide health benefits, but not nearly as much as religiosity does, so there's some benefit above and beyond just the providing of a community.
I've written before about why I think Christianity is definitionally the most optimistic worldview you can adopt. I haven't tied Christianity to polarization yet explicitly but probably should do an article on that at some point. I definitely think it's the best antidote for widespread pessimism and negativity. Think you might enjoy this one if you haven't read it:
A lot of this pessimism isn't just Americans yearning for the idealistic "good ole' days" but also from many abroad, especially Europeans, who look down on the States based on the perception of the United States not doing "enough." Things cited are often the healthcare system, gun rights (and what follows from the laxer restrictions, wealth inequality, lax speech laws, to name some. That's mostly what is accompanied when I observe comments like "America is a third world country with a Gucci belt." The US obviously has its problems but that kind of comment is an assessment (or lack thereof) based on ignorance and denial of certain tradeoffs that our neighbors across the pond bear.
Good essay, and thank you for the medicinal dose of anti-negativity bias. However, I have a question- why on Earth would you cite greater urbanisation as a good thing?
Most metrics show that people who live in rural areas are happier- higher levels of life satisfaction, greater sense of community, less stress and a slower pace of living. Sure, job availability is a downside and less access to mental health services leads to higher rates of suicide, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that high levels of depression are endemic in cities.
For years, most people saw suburban living as the best balance in terms of trade-offs, but that's changing- now that remote working has opened up as a possibility and online shopping brings the world to your door, people are moving out to the Sticks in droves, and is particularly common amongst the highest earners.
There is another factor. Children raised in rural areas have the highest rates of social mobility (Raj Chetty). Research on monozygotic twins showed that kids separated at birth and raised in different urban environments showed a 3 point difference in IQ dependent upon access to green spaces, when other multivariate factors were removed. The studies authors noted the effect was likely stronger for children raised in rural environments. My guess is it's likely to be due to access to free range play.
It's a great point - I almost didn't include that chart because of exactly what you mentioned. I'm not arguing that urbanization is good in and of itself, I'm just pushing back against a certain view of postwar America that believes everyone was living in idyllic suburbs in a new home that they owned. The reality is that 3/10 Americans still lived in rural areas in older homes without access to AC or basic appliances. Rural living may still be better for us overall, I'm just showing that the view that everyone lived in idyllic suburbs is an oversimplified view of the past and more evidence that we don't typically remember the past very accurately. Very interesting stat on children raised in rural areas - I hadn't heard this before.
This is a great! What I'm interested in, however, is the state level data in the rust belt (I'm not smart enough to find it). Namely, populists/protectionists really emphasize how we've "de-industrialized" in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. and their data points are 1) manufacturing employment (obviously) 2) population decline/industries moving away.
I'm skeptical of both of these points, namely because we still build *more than we ever have*, it's just that technology is more productive, so we build more with less people. I tried to look for data on this, but I'm pretty sure the population in the rust belt has basically increased, the unemployment is still low, and I have read that median wages are still higher than they were 60 years ago. The problem is that I can't really find good data on below-median incomes adjusted for inflation in those specific states.
Anyway, the reason I'm harping on this is because I have no idea where to find good state level data (I'm also not really economically trained and so don't have good ethos for it). In line with your thesis, I typically think we're just being nostalgic for a time where workers made less, worked more, and did a specific a job, where even in the states where those specific jobs left, pretty much everyone is better off. The only ones who aren't better off are maybe pensioners who lost their job 40 years ago and either didn't move or had too much pride to look for a different job. Just my thoughts! Would love to see an analysis by someone about those specific states (OH/WI/PA/MI) as opposed to the general trend.
There’s no better way to learn about a subject than to write about it. If you’re interested in it I’d say go for it, even if no one reads it, you’ll still understand it much better than you did
Great points. I have an article I'll release hopefully in a few weeks that addresses these exact points. Totally agree that many popular narratives of decline are based more on negativity bias than they are on real facts on the ground, and the rust belt/ manufacturing decline is the most topical right now given tariffs.
In the meantime, here's an article from another guy who just commented on this essay. Great timing on his part as I just read this article a few minutes before reading your comment lol
This is great because this was on my "to write" list, but I'm honestly not qualified/have strong enough understanding of economics to be the one to lead on such discussions, so I'm excited to read and share!
Fantastic article. Myths about civilizational decline are way too popular, and they feed into lots of really bad ideas that will make everyone worse off.
One of America's biggest exports is pessimism. We lead the world in creating all sorts of negative, pessimistic narratives and stories. A pessimistic story in every pot. To each a pessimistic story according to his need. :)
The pessimism-industrial complex is in full swing. Not sure if you saw this article link but figured you'd find it interesting. I've been learning more about how negativity is LITERALLY biochemically addictive. I had originally been thinking about our negativity addiction as a good analogy, but the science backing up the addictive qualities of negativity are pretty interesting.
Purchasing power is what is most important. Inflation adjusted Consumer Price Index shows that the purchasing power of $20k in 1960 is equivalent to $216k today. (Per U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Not saying I disagree with all of this article or would prefer to live in the 60s (I wouldn't), but some of these charts make the economic picture look a bit rosier than reality.
Based on our economic growth, home ownership should be much higher than it is. It has barely changed since the 60's.
The GDP per capita chart is already inflation adjusted. 1960 figures shown are in 2021 dollars, so actual nominal GDP per capita in 1960 was much lower at just $3k
Agreed home ownership should be much higher today but that's a housing policy / supply side issue. NIMBYs have been too popular for too long, and it isn't some fundamental issue with capitalism. My only point was that home ownership today is still higher than it was in the 60's, so people shouldn't act like things have gotten worse since then. Trying to affect the homeownership rate on the demand side is what led to 2008, so it's a tough issue that can lead to massive problems if handled poorly.
Ahhh that makes sense, my mistake...$3k per capita is yucky.
Housing is tough but I'd like to think 2008 was more related to a lack of transparency (compounded with loans that should never have been approved). But I still think that there's a method to go about this where we could increase homeownership significantly without adding a ton of risk.
As an old bettor looking at the homeownership percentage over time - homeownership is DUE to break through 65-70%...lol
Targeted subsidies and tax breaks towards the 10-20% that are right on that buy or rent line. Rent-to-buy programs.
I'm honestly surprised there's not already big competition between private companies working on a Rent-to-Buy model already. Seems like a home run as long as you target that 10-20% I'm talking about and don't just blanket approve anyone who applies.
I think you miss the point.
Everyone knows technology has gotten better since 1960. But they don’t credit this fact to our institutions or social norms. They credit it to “some stuff nerds reliably do that make us X% richer every year as long as we aren’t communists”.
So what they really want is 2025 technology combined with 1960 society. Amazon.com + 1960 crime rates. Central AC + 1960 marriage rates. Lower child mortality + 1960 fertility rates.
They seem to correctly understand that a working class person could acquire a wife, kids, and shelter in a safe neighborhood near their work in 1960. The home might have been smaller and it might have had less appliances, but it would have been a home with a family in a stable community.
In other words, the kind of stuff Charles Murray talks about in Coming Apart.
Myself, it’s clear from running the math that someone with my father’s job could not afford to live in the house I grew up in. Perhaps you could say this is a sign of economic growth (real estate got more expensive), but Something feels off about that.
Crime would have been another good graph, I should have included that one. Murder rate in 1960 was 5.1 compared to 5.0 in 2019. There was a covid bump but now it's coming back down. The 60's had a 13% higher average murder rate than the 2010's did. Violent crime is a favorite topic for the negativity industrial complex.
Marriage and fertility rates are different issues and I hear you on those. I'd love marriage rates to be higher, but at the same time, marriage rates were inflated in the 60's because no fault divorce laws hadn't been enacted yet. More people were married, but presumably there were a lot more unhappy marriages. Now people have the ability to leave marriages more freely, so it's just a cultural issue to ensure that people are choosing long term partners for the right reasons. Fertility is even tougher and there's a huge debate as to what's causing this decline. Not enough space here to flesh that out but again it's probably a cultural issue, not an inherent issue with populist targets like capitalism or liberalism.
Murray's community decline arguments resonate with me too. I'm all for more community, but in my mind there's nothing inherent in capitalism or liberalism that precludes forming strong communities. The argument that our economic or political institutions need to be radically reformed to better promote community are based on faulty assumptions about the causes of community decline. Wealth creation can cause community decline in the same way that excess food production can cause diabetes. The solution isn't to burn down the farms. Wealth and food production are good things in moderation, and culturally we just need to remember how to better moderate. Populists blame community decline on top-down nefarious causes like globalism, the elites, immigration, corporations, etc., and all I'm arguing is that the top-down causes of community formation is backwards - communities are definitionally bottoms-up grassroots organizations, so if people want better communities, they should start or join better communities.
The murder rate is a bit dodgy to use because medical advances, especially those that came out of the Vietnam War, dramatically reduced the number of people who actually die from violent acts compared to incidences of violent acts themselves. So its not that violent crime went down, just that less people are outright dying from it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124155/
There are other advances that have curtailed certain kinds of crime. For instance, it's just a lot harder and less lucrative to steal cars these days. But when measures fail for some reason theft increases dramatically.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/04/business/hyundai-kia-thefts-increased-10-fold/index.html
I think this data shows a pretty good job of telling the story, and 1960 really was a lot better on the crime front.
https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
On a personal note having lived in a high crime city for awhile, I know my own reported crime rate was 90% lower than my actual experienced crime rate. Once you call the police the first time and learn nothing is going to be done, you don't call again.
I would also note we've also taken on a number of lifestyle changes to avoid crime, such as white flight, sprawl and zoning that have their own costs in order to keep crime down. A lot of your NIMBYism is just "the only way available for us to keep the underclass out."
"no fault divorce laws hadn't been enacted yet. More people were married, but presumably there were a lot more unhappy marriages."
I'm skeptical. Most research seems to indicate that divorcing for non-fault reasons is bad for the kids and doesn't do anything for the adults.
I think the real driver is just that we heavily subsidize single mothers and tax working class married mens wages at like 100% when you factor in benefit eligibility. Who wouldn't marry uncle same under those circumstances.
UMC gets around this by marrying late with super high incomes, with the price being that they are too old to have kids.
I don't argue against "capitalism". My solutions would in many ways mirror Murray's (note, Murray calls for lower immigration rates as part of the package).
A nice oasis in the sea of online doomposting, which definitely plays a role in the widespread negativity. I think you did a great job covering the analytical perspective. There’s certainly no rational reason for the negativity. I wonder if what you’ve observed can be explained better psychologically, or dare I say spiritually? I’m not sure if there are already coined terms out there to describe things like this, maybe you can be the first.
Nice work! Looking forward to more
Thank you sir! I've thought about the spiritual factors before but haven't written about it yet in an article. Curious what you mean by it - how do you think negativity is being caused by spiritual factors?
Basically my question would be: does secularization lead to higher depression rates or "negativity" about the future in our context? I know that's really hard to nail down, especially since negativity can't really be tracked, but I got some starter info from grok on twitter:
"At the individual level, research in the U.S. paints a pretty consistent picture: religiosity often correlates with lower depression. A big review of 444 studies from 1962 to 2010 found that 61% showed less depression among religious folks, with only 6% suggesting more. A 2010 Gallup analysis of over 550,000 Americans found "very religious" people—those attending services weekly and rating religion as important—had a 15.6% lifetime depression diagnosis rate, compared to 19.2% for the moderately religious and 17.8% for the nonreligious. The protective edge held even after controlling for demographics like age, gender, and region. Another study, from Columbia University in 2011, tracked 114 high-risk adults over 10 years and found those who valued religion or spirituality highly had less than one-tenth the risk of major depression recurrence. Fast forward to a 2018 study on midlife Americans: those identifying as "spiritual but not religious" had a 33% higher depression risk over decades compared to the religiously affiliated, suggesting organized religion might offer something—maybe community or structure—that solo spirituality doesn’t."
Is that enough to be significant? Probably not, but I think in general religion can affect outlook on life and therefore positivity. As for the how, I'm not really sure. Could be a lot of factors like community or something more existentialist.
Yeah great thoughts. I definitely think spirituality is a key factor. The evidence that religion has positive health, happiness, and mental health benefits is pretty robust at this point and interestingly it looks like it's not just the community involvement that is responsible for these benefits - other communities like civic clubs or bowling leagues or whatever also provide health benefits, but not nearly as much as religiosity does, so there's some benefit above and beyond just the providing of a community.
I've written before about why I think Christianity is definitionally the most optimistic worldview you can adopt. I haven't tied Christianity to polarization yet explicitly but probably should do an article on that at some point. I definitely think it's the best antidote for widespread pessimism and negativity. Think you might enjoy this one if you haven't read it:
https://travismonteleone.substack.com/p/why-im-a-christian?r=1l2z5n
Cool I will definitely read. Thanks Travis keep it up brother
A lot of this pessimism isn't just Americans yearning for the idealistic "good ole' days" but also from many abroad, especially Europeans, who look down on the States based on the perception of the United States not doing "enough." Things cited are often the healthcare system, gun rights (and what follows from the laxer restrictions, wealth inequality, lax speech laws, to name some. That's mostly what is accompanied when I observe comments like "America is a third world country with a Gucci belt." The US obviously has its problems but that kind of comment is an assessment (or lack thereof) based on ignorance and denial of certain tradeoffs that our neighbors across the pond bear.
Great article!
Thanks!
Good essay, and thank you for the medicinal dose of anti-negativity bias. However, I have a question- why on Earth would you cite greater urbanisation as a good thing?
Most metrics show that people who live in rural areas are happier- higher levels of life satisfaction, greater sense of community, less stress and a slower pace of living. Sure, job availability is a downside and less access to mental health services leads to higher rates of suicide, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that high levels of depression are endemic in cities.
For years, most people saw suburban living as the best balance in terms of trade-offs, but that's changing- now that remote working has opened up as a possibility and online shopping brings the world to your door, people are moving out to the Sticks in droves, and is particularly common amongst the highest earners.
There is another factor. Children raised in rural areas have the highest rates of social mobility (Raj Chetty). Research on monozygotic twins showed that kids separated at birth and raised in different urban environments showed a 3 point difference in IQ dependent upon access to green spaces, when other multivariate factors were removed. The studies authors noted the effect was likely stronger for children raised in rural environments. My guess is it's likely to be due to access to free range play.
It's a great point - I almost didn't include that chart because of exactly what you mentioned. I'm not arguing that urbanization is good in and of itself, I'm just pushing back against a certain view of postwar America that believes everyone was living in idyllic suburbs in a new home that they owned. The reality is that 3/10 Americans still lived in rural areas in older homes without access to AC or basic appliances. Rural living may still be better for us overall, I'm just showing that the view that everyone lived in idyllic suburbs is an oversimplified view of the past and more evidence that we don't typically remember the past very accurately. Very interesting stat on children raised in rural areas - I hadn't heard this before.
This is a great! What I'm interested in, however, is the state level data in the rust belt (I'm not smart enough to find it). Namely, populists/protectionists really emphasize how we've "de-industrialized" in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. and their data points are 1) manufacturing employment (obviously) 2) population decline/industries moving away.
I'm skeptical of both of these points, namely because we still build *more than we ever have*, it's just that technology is more productive, so we build more with less people. I tried to look for data on this, but I'm pretty sure the population in the rust belt has basically increased, the unemployment is still low, and I have read that median wages are still higher than they were 60 years ago. The problem is that I can't really find good data on below-median incomes adjusted for inflation in those specific states.
Anyway, the reason I'm harping on this is because I have no idea where to find good state level data (I'm also not really economically trained and so don't have good ethos for it). In line with your thesis, I typically think we're just being nostalgic for a time where workers made less, worked more, and did a specific a job, where even in the states where those specific jobs left, pretty much everyone is better off. The only ones who aren't better off are maybe pensioners who lost their job 40 years ago and either didn't move or had too much pride to look for a different job. Just my thoughts! Would love to see an analysis by someone about those specific states (OH/WI/PA/MI) as opposed to the general trend.
There’s no better way to learn about a subject than to write about it. If you’re interested in it I’d say go for it, even if no one reads it, you’ll still understand it much better than you did
Great points. I have an article I'll release hopefully in a few weeks that addresses these exact points. Totally agree that many popular narratives of decline are based more on negativity bias than they are on real facts on the ground, and the rust belt/ manufacturing decline is the most topical right now given tariffs.
In the meantime, here's an article from another guy who just commented on this essay. Great timing on his part as I just read this article a few minutes before reading your comment lol
https://substack.com/@yah5us/p-160655569
This is great because this was on my "to write" list, but I'm honestly not qualified/have strong enough understanding of economics to be the one to lead on such discussions, so I'm excited to read and share!
Fantastic article. Myths about civilizational decline are way too popular, and they feed into lots of really bad ideas that will make everyone worse off.
"a country known for its optimism"
That's a good thing to be known for!
One of America's biggest exports is pessimism. We lead the world in creating all sorts of negative, pessimistic narratives and stories. A pessimistic story in every pot. To each a pessimistic story according to his need. :)
The pessimism-industrial complex is in full swing. Not sure if you saw this article link but figured you'd find it interesting. I've been learning more about how negativity is LITERALLY biochemically addictive. I had originally been thinking about our negativity addiction as a good analogy, but the science backing up the addictive qualities of negativity are pretty interesting.
https://semipermanent.com/stories/the-outrage-machine
Our working class parents grew up sleeping three in a bed with five kids in a two-bedroom.
I blame ‘Leave it to Beaver.’ It portrays an American that was only assessable to some people.
Purchasing power is what is most important. Inflation adjusted Consumer Price Index shows that the purchasing power of $20k in 1960 is equivalent to $216k today. (Per U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Not saying I disagree with all of this article or would prefer to live in the 60s (I wouldn't), but some of these charts make the economic picture look a bit rosier than reality.
Based on our economic growth, home ownership should be much higher than it is. It has barely changed since the 60's.
The GDP per capita chart is already inflation adjusted. 1960 figures shown are in 2021 dollars, so actual nominal GDP per capita in 1960 was much lower at just $3k
Agreed home ownership should be much higher today but that's a housing policy / supply side issue. NIMBYs have been too popular for too long, and it isn't some fundamental issue with capitalism. My only point was that home ownership today is still higher than it was in the 60's, so people shouldn't act like things have gotten worse since then. Trying to affect the homeownership rate on the demand side is what led to 2008, so it's a tough issue that can lead to massive problems if handled poorly.
Ahhh that makes sense, my mistake...$3k per capita is yucky.
Housing is tough but I'd like to think 2008 was more related to a lack of transparency (compounded with loans that should never have been approved). But I still think that there's a method to go about this where we could increase homeownership significantly without adding a ton of risk.
As an old bettor looking at the homeownership percentage over time - homeownership is DUE to break through 65-70%...lol
Targeted subsidies and tax breaks towards the 10-20% that are right on that buy or rent line. Rent-to-buy programs.
I'm honestly surprised there's not already big competition between private companies working on a Rent-to-Buy model already. Seems like a home run as long as you target that 10-20% I'm talking about and don't just blanket approve anyone who applies.